<quoted text>The agents knew exactly why they were there and exactly what they were after.FTA:"After the search began, Hudson said she was asked by an investigator with the Coast Guard Investigative Service if she was the same Audrey Hudson who had written a series of critical stories about air marshals for The Washington Times over the last decade."

Wow. That's all you require for proof of a conspiracy? The unsupported assertion from a person with an obvious stake in the game?

<quoted text>Wow. That's all you require for proof of a conspiracy? The unsupported assertion from a person with an obvious stake in the game?

Worked for Hillary, didn't it?

"Vast right-wing conspiracy" was a description used by then First Lady of the United States Hillary Rodham Clinton in 1998 in defense of her husband, President Bill Clinton, characterizing the continued allegations of scandal against her and her husband, including the Lewinsky scandal, as part of a long campaign by Clinton's political enemies.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vast_right-wing_...

<quoted text>I did read the article. That's how I was able to determine that what you are making into some insidious conspiracy, without any supporting evidence, appears to a rational mind to be a pretty mundane law enforcement matter.

One is an coincidence, dozens are a pattern.

Not to mention the old saying ... there is no such thing as coincidence.

<quoted text>Worked for Hillary, didn't it?"Vast right-wing conspiracy" was a description used by then First Lady of the United States Hillary Rodham Clinton in 1998 in defense of her husband, President Bill Clinton, characterizing the continued allegations of scandal against her and her husband, including the Lewinsky scandal, as part of a long campaign by Clinton's political enemies.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vast_right-wing_...

And you support these people? You must be very proud. Maybe they'll make you block captain.

(Read below.)

==========

BUT IM SURE ACORN OR THINKPROGRESS WOULD BE FINE: Fort Hood soldiers say Army warned them off tea party, Christian groups.

Dont donate to the tea party or to evangelical Christian groups  that was the message soldiers at a pre-deployment briefing at Fort Hood said they received from a counter-intelligence agent who headed up the meeting.

If you do, you could face punishment  that was the other half of the message, as reported by Fox News. The briefing was Oct. 17, and about a half-hour of it was devoted to discussion about how perceived radical groups  like tea party organizations and the Christian-based American Family Association  were tearing the country apart, one unnamed soldier said, to Fox News.

Among the remarks the agent allegedly made: Military members who donate to these groups would be subject to discipline under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the soldier reported.

Liberty Institute has stepped in to investigate. Michael Berry, one of the nonprofits attorneys, said he has been advising the soldier about his options  but that in the meanwhile, he said the American public should be on guard.

Theyre politicizing the military, like theyve politicized the IRS, because they politicize everything. Thats who they are, thats what they do.

And yet another thread that proves the state of mental healthcare in this Nation is appalling.It's a wonder one doesn't see more homes wrapped in tinfoil in one's daily travels.

"There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we cant keep track of all of them here at the White House, were asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to [email protected]"

<quoted text>I do no such thing, liar. I'm pointing out, for the thousandth time, the hypocrisy and double standards of you and your kind.

Let's see, 3.1. For the double standard argument to work, either both of the claimed conspiracies would have to be legitimate, or they would both have to be illegitimate. Hence the "double" standard. So by your post, you were either demonstrating that Tip's conspiracy claim was illegitimate just like you thought Clinton's was, or that Tip's was legitimate like you thought Clinton's was. Contextually, the second option wouldn't make much sense. I suppose there is a third option, that you really aren't very smart.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.